Punjab

Sangrur

CC/182/2020

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Legand Infratech India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jindal

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 182

 Instituted on:   06.07.2020

                                                                         Decided on:     08.08.2023

Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Babu Ram, resident of Village Akbarpur, P.O. Nagra, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.                 Legend Infratech India Limited, Regd. Office, Plot No.19, Street No.3, Sukhdev Nagar, Behind Bus Stand, Panipat-132103 through its Managing Director Vinod Kumar.

2.         Babu Singh (Retd. Post Master) Manager, Legend Infratech India Limited, Ex-Sarpanch Village Dhandoli Kalan, Tehsil Dirba, Distt. Sangrur.  (Complaint against OP number 2 was withdrawn on 12.10.2022 being OP number 2 has died).

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant      : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jindal,Adv.              

For the OP No.1            : Exparte.

For the OP No.2            : None.

           

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER.

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant availed services of OPs by investing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of FDR for 48 months on 30.11.2015 vide serial number 02500 which was to mature on 30.11.2015 and maturity value was to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant also invested an amount of Rs.11,150/- in the shape of FDR for 12 months on 30.12.2016 and an amount of Rs.12410/- was payable on maturity on 30.12.2016.   The complainant also invested an amount of Rs.15000/- in the shape of
FDR for 12 months on 30.11.2015 and an amount of Rs.16695/- was payable on maturity on 30.11.2016. It is further averred that the complainant also opened an account under which he was to deposit an amount of Rs.1300/- per month for 36 and on maturity an amount of Rs.60840/- was payable, but the grievance of the complainant is that despite he approached various officials of the OPs and requested them to release the maturity amount but latter failed to do the needful and this is how they were clearly deficient in their services.  Even thereafter the complainant approached various authorities on numerous occasions but when nothing was done by the OPs then he was constrained to approach this Forum/Commission with a request for directing the Ops to release the maturity amount alongwith interest and also for Rs.25,000/- on account of mental harassment and inconvenience and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Opposite party number 1 got served by publication in the newspaper dated 22.09.2021, but despite that OP number 1 did not put appearance, as such it was proceeded against exparte on 15.11.2021.

3.             Record shows that OP number 2 died during the present proceedings, as such the complaint against OP number 2 was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the complainant vide his statement dated 12.10.2022.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant produced evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavit.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the complainant along with his supporting documents with his valuable assistance.

6.             In order to prove case the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of FDR, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-16 copies of receipts, ExC-17 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-18 and Ex.C-19 postal receipt and Ex.C-20 affidavit and closed evidence.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant availed services of OP by investing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of FDR for 48 months on 30.11.2015 vide serial number 02500 which was to mature on 30.11.2015 and maturity value was to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- which is evident from the copy of certificate Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant also invested an amount of Rs.11,150/- in the shape of FDR for 12 months on 30.12.2016 and an amount of Rs.12410/- was payable on maturity on 30.12.2016 as is proved from document Ex.C-3.   The complainant also invested an amount of Rs.15000/- in the shape of FDR for 12 months on 30.11.2015 and an amount of Rs.16695/- was payable on maturity on 30.11.2016 as is evident from the copy of certificate Ex.C-4. It is further proved on record that the complainant also opened an account under which he was to deposit an amount of Rs.1300/- per month for 36 but the complainant deposited only 12 instalments of Rs.1300/- each, as such, the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.15,600/- as is evident from the copies of receipts on record Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-16. Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant has sufficient proved on record his case as discussed above. The whole of the evidence of the complainant is unrebutted.

8.             As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.15,600/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. Further, OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from 1.12.2015 till its realization. The OP number 1 is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,410/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from 1.1.2017 till its realization and further the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.16695/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from 1.12.2016 till its realization. Further OP number 1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                        Pronounced.

                       August 8, 2023.